And finally, even a combination of democracy and collectivism, up to a certain point, might produce a majority composed in part of small capitalists and favored government employees.

Collectivist democracy completed or far advanced would insure the coming of Socialism.

But a policy that merely gave us _more_ collectivism plus _more_ democracy, might carry us equally well either towards Socialism or in the opposite direction.

The ultimate goal of present society does not give us a ready-made plan of action by a mathematical process of dividing its attainment into so many mechanical stages.
A very similar political shibboleth, often used by Party Socialists, is "Let the nation own the trusts." Let us assume that the constitution of this country were made as democratic as that of Australia or Switzerland, and the suffrage made absolutely universal (as to adults).
Let us assume, moreover, that the "trusts," including railways, public service corporations, banks, mines, oil, and lumber interests, the steel-making and meat-packing industries, and the few other important businesses where monopolies are established, were owned and operated by governments of this character.

Taken together with the social and labor reforms that would accompany such a regime, this would be "State Socialism," but it would not _necessarily_ constitute even a _step towards_ Socialism--and this for two reasons.
The industries mentioned employ probably less than a third of the population, and, even if we add other government employments, the total would be little more than a third.